Good day. I would like to know exactly what flaws to look for when reviewing a scientific journal. Need some examples and if you wish, a site giving an example of a scientific journal that has been critiqued so i will know how exactly it is done. Thanks!
2007-09-05 16:18:45 · 4 answers · asked by The Honourable 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Scientific journals usually contain articles, and it is usually the articles that are being critiqued. As far as I know, there are no exact ways to do this. I would suggest you read journal articles just for structure and content, and some flaws may pop up by unusual items in the articles.
Also, some journals are more "major league" than others, so if you have an "American Journal of Biology" and an "Huckabee County Journal of Biology", the latter may have more flaws in it.
2007-09-05 16:26:38 · answer #1 · answered by cattbarf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the above entries, but in some journals (like PNAS USA), one thing to look out for is small print stating a particular article to be an advertisment.
This is code for "the editors know and like the author(s), so this paper has not been through the full peer-review process".
Also common-sense things like the number and quality of figures. Too many or too few can indicate a poor paper (padding, or lack of data respectively).
Another thing that can be (loosely) used as a guide is the journal's Impact Factor. This is a rough measurement of how influential the journal is, and can change from year to year.
2007-09-05 21:05:43 · answer #2 · answered by gribbling 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the other person.....some people when writing try and sway you to their side.....you need to know a little about the topic to help you pick out any glaring problems.
You need to see if they used a proper scientific techniques with enough replicates to be useful and reliable.
You may need to look at some of the sources used as well ( in hte biblography)..... They should have also used a number of sources too.
Looking at the info you may pick up things they needed to do, you may come to a different conclusion to them etc etc etc
2007-09-05 18:09:11 · answer #3 · answered by mareeclara 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no longer truly. the US army took his dolphin artwork quite heavily, yet his drug aided isolation tank experiments form of ostracized him from mainstream technological information. None of his learn replaced into ever of a form that must be scientifically documented to an volume it mandatory to be taken heavily for many.
2016-10-10 01:13:43 · answer #4 · answered by mcmaster 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋